db_start_maintenance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

"Start maintenance" implies a state change, but the description does not disclose potential downtime, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description also carries that disclosure burden and only promises a status message.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well organized: one clear action sentence, one Args line, and one Returns line. It stays front-loaded and contains no filler, repeating only the necessary parameter guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a potentially disruptive maintenance action that has no annotations, the description does not explain consequences, prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios. An output schema may explain the return shape, but the risk context is still missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema described, the description compensates by defining database_id as either the database ID or label. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type and covers the only required parameter, although it leaves format/precision unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The lead sentence clearly states the action on a specific resource: "Start maintenance on a database." It is distinguishable by name from database deletion, read-replica creation, and version upgrade, but it does not explicitly contrast with those sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of tools like db_start_version_upgrade, db_get_maintenance_updates, or db_delete. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested contexts, so an agent must decide to call it based on the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.